The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com
- Tallulah Morehead: Oscar Wild
- Robert Creamer: How Bush's Policies in the Muslim World Played into Terrorists' Hands - Can Obama Reverse Course?
- Craig Crawford: Oscar Leads the Way
- Raymond J. Learsy: Trust: The Reason Bank Nationalization is Essential
| Tallulah Morehead: Oscar Wild | Top |
| Hello darlings. As my longtime readers and fans know, I have only contempt for the silly trinket known as The Oscar, which is why in a movie career that spanned the silents and the talkies, I have never been nominated for one. The Academy respected my contempt, and never nominated me, which is more than they did for George C. Scott or Marlon Brando. The Academy demonstrated their contempt for Scott & Brando by forcing Oscars on them against their wills, the poor dears. That's probably what killed them. The Oscars have grown into such a major event, the so-called "Gay Superbowl", that they are impossible to ignore. So what the swill? I might as well weigh in with my two Euros. There was a half hour delay getting started, because last year's Oscar show wasn't quite over yet. No Country For Old Men had become No Country For Even Older Men . Josh Brolin never had to leave his seat. And it started right out with a big disappointment: Huge Jackman was wearing clothes. Honestly, with openly-gay Bill Condon producing, and the Sexiest Man Alive hosting, the one thing I thought I could count on was Huge hosting in a tasteful, designer thong. They always promise to speed the show up, and they never actually manage it, but Huge hosting nude would at least have made it seem shorter. No such luck. Of course, Huge is Australian; maybe he was just disoriented from having to host upside down. Huge opened with a big, Billy Crystal-esque musical number, which benefitted from Huge being a real song-and-dance man who began in musicals. The song included jokes about no one seeing The Reader . That was refreshingly honest. Then, perhaps to counter that un-Oscarish honesty, Huge returned to traditional Oscar insincerity by telling Mickey Roarke ,"You look great." No he doesn't. Check a mirror, Huge. That is what "Looking Great" is all about. Once the tech crew figured out how to open the curtains, Condon and company unveiled their idea of slimming down the presentation: having five presenters for one Oscar! Now if you had five presenters presenting five Oscars all at once, in the words of Chico Marx, then-a you got somethin'! For another show-slimming tactic, over the evening they explained how to make movies to the members of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences . That's a good use of time. Could we just keep Tina Fey and Steve Martin, and send everyone else home? "Don't fall in love with me," said Steve. Sorry. You're 35 years too late, Steve. Openly-gay writer Dustin Lance Black won Best Original Screenplay for milking Milk . His real award was for escaping the Mormon Church, which has so kindly spent thousands of dollars this year to deprive him of his equal marital rights. Black's moving speech was almost drowned out by the sounds of televisions being switched off all over Utah and the deep south. The screenplay excerpt for the inexplicably over-nominated Curious Case of Benjamin Button included the stage direction: "There's an inept quiet" What is an "inept quiet"? How does it differ from a skillful quiet? How does a director show that a quiet is inept? By making it noisy? What we have here is an inept screenwriter. Fortunately, it lost to Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Password . Presenting all the animation awards, Jack Black revealed that he saw nothing he wasn't in. How coincidental. I saw nothing he was in. Daniel Craig came out and talked about something. I have no idea what. I was too busy swooning. Best Art Direction went to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button . Why? People who like this stupid film call it a "special movie." Yes, it's "special" in the same sense as the "Special Olympics". I don't think anyone has ever done a better job of Art Directing than Mike Nichols, back in Carnal Knowledge and Catch-22 , where he did a swell job of directing Art Garfunkle. You think he's easy to direct? You try it. I found it ironic that Daniel Craig was awarding Best Costumes, as he is the living embodiment of the irrelevancy of costumes, since he looks his best in no clothes at all. It went to The Duchess . How does a movie win an Oscar when no one saw it, not even the people who made it? Best Make Up went to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button . That makes sense, since they just made up a nonexistent premise for the film. It is a challenge to make Brad Pitt look creepy, but is it enough for an Oscar? Admittedly, Heath Ledger's Joker make up did look rather slapdash. It's a good thing they announced Twilight 's Robert Pattinson's name nice and loudly, as no one there would have had any idea who he was. The Academy is noticeably short on severely-overweight teenage girls. Ben Stiller and Natalie Portman made an interesting couple. Natalie is about the size of one of Ben stiller's arms. Anthony Dod Mantle was lucky to win Best Cinematography for Slumdog Weakest Link , as he will never win Best Hairstyling. Honestly, if that hairstyle doesn't work on Russell Crowe, why would he think it would look good on him? Hell, that hair wouldn't look good on Anne Hathaway. But I liked him, as he was the one winner who was clearly drunk. How else to explain wearing cream shoes with a black tuxedo? Jessica Beal presented The Technical Oscars, so titled because they're only technically Oscars at all, really known as "The Boring Awards." Actually, you could hardly call it a presentation, as they only mentioned one winner - ONE! Apparently they are the "We don't really mean it" Oscars. So Condon's idea of speeding up The Oscars is to cut out the Oscars that are already cut out. Classy. To add more time to the show, which they must have feared was running short, they ran a "Comedy" montage made by Judd Apatow. If I wanted to watch Judd Apatow movies, I wouldn't be watching the Oscars. Or be able to write - or read. It was bizarre to watch James Franco watch himself making out with Sean Penn. But then, watching anyone make out with Sean Penn is a little strange. Franco could do better. Huge Jackman stated, "You're probably wondering why I'm wearing this suit?" Damn right. 82 minutes in, and he was still fully dressed. He launched into a time-saving big musical number which was lots of fun, though I kept wondering who the babe in red he was performing with was. Only afterwards did they announce it was Beyonce Knowles. I'm supposed to just recognize her? I'm 111. That's why I didn't review The Grammys. I did recognize Zac Efron, but only because I'd seen Hairspray . They were now clearly going to use five past winners to present each acting award. Why? For Best Supporting Actor they had five presenters, but no winner. They were so desperate to fill out the five slots, that they settled for Cuba Gooding Jr., although the Academy has been hoping everyone would just forget that they ever gave him one. Last year's winner, the dreamy and divine Javier Bardem, didn't even bother showing up, though whether this was because he wouldn't lower himself to share a stage with Cuba, or just that his mom had a prior engagement wasn't made clear. It was amusing to have Cuba, a real black man but only a fake actor, announcing the nomination of Robert Downey Jr., a real actor, but only a fake black man. Christopher Walken, I adore you. You can make almost anything better just by showing up, but what was the deal with your hair? Is that your ear hair groomed? Heath Ledger won Best Supporting actor. I had Little Dougie type that sentence last week, to get an early start on this review. It was not, to put it mildly, any surprise. Heath's family's acceptance presentation was about as spontaneous as the musical numbers, though I was amused by the shots of the never-had-a-chance other nominees posing with serious and concerned fake expressions on their faces as they watched. You just know that each was thinking, "Heath's dead. This award could have helped my career!" The next big waste of time was a montage of documentary film makers blathering. Bill Mahar presented the documentary awards, a deep irony, since Mahar had made the most-non-fictional non-fiction movie of the year, which had not been nominated because it was too true, presenting the one fact people most want to hide from, the fact that there is no God. And Mahar's excellent documentary has already made more money than all the nominated documentaries combined. God forbid it should get nominated, and I mean that in the most literal sense possible. Let's face it, in this backward, superstitious nation, we'll have a black, female, gay president before we ever get an atheist president. Best Documentary Feature went to a movie about a tightrope-walker. Man on Wire . Yeah, some borderline-nutso circus wire walker is far more important that a film on how religious delusions will kill us all. I mean it didn't even go to the one made by Werner Herzog, an authentic cinematic genius. Then the silly wire-walker, Philippe Petit (" Petit " eh? So that's why he's overcompensating.") says he'll give "The shortest speech in Oscar History," which, at six words, was already longer than Alfred Hitchcock's five word speech, "Thank you very much indeed." so wire boy doesn't even know his Oscar history. And then he kept chattering anyway. And just to class up his exit, he attempted to fellate his Oscar. (Actually, it wasn't even his; it belongs to the film's makers, not its subject.) Time for yet another time waster, an "Action" montage. Then up pops Will Smith, who made it clear that he prefers brainless movies, ones that don't require him to listen or think. Will presented Best Visual Effects to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button . It had already won Best Make Up. The make up was its special effect. Just CGI-ing make ups onto other actors hardly compares to the actual effects work in the other two nominees, The Dark Knight and Ironman , both better movies as well. What Benjamin Button ought to have won was Best Inflation of a Stupid Idea Into a Bloated Movie that the Entire Industry All Seems to Be Afraid of Pointing Out Has No Substance. The Emperor's New Clothes Award. Four times we had five presenters handing out a single award. Now we had Will Smith, one presenter, handing out four awards. This makes no sense to me. The Dark Knight won Best Sound Editing. The makers of Dark Knight were relieved finally to have a living winner, although Heath Ledger's family were all set to accept the award. Indian sound engineer Resul Pookutty, in accepting his Oscar for Best Sound Mixing for Slumdog Match Game '73 , said "This is unbelievable," then adding "We can't believe this," in case any of us are unfamiliar with what "This is unbelievable" means. By the way, does anyone know the difference between sound editing and sound mixing? Is there a difference? Best Film editing was also won by Slumdog Family Feud , by an editor, Chris Dickens, who sadly, is not Charles Dickens. Before a commercial break they warned us about the upcoming Jerry Lewis tribute, so people with weak stomachs could switch over to The Amazing Race . The Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award was given to Jerry Lewis for doing humanity the service of not directing one of his Godawful, unwatchable movies in over a quarter of a century. If Jean Hersholt had known that one day an award in his name would go to Jerry Lewis, he'd have been meaner. I know and understand that Jerry has over the years, raised millions and millions of dollars for the treatment of muscular dystrophy. This is an Absolute Good, regardless of whether he did it for the unselfish reasons he unselfishly reminds us of at any and all opportunities, or whether he does it so that people will think of him as being as saintly as he does, which I believe. They had Eddie Murphy present the award. This was smart. Eddie's Nutty Professor movies make Jerry's The Nutty Professor look almost like a good film, and thus having Eddie on stage made Jerry look better too. The film montage of Jerry's career referred to when "the world first came to love Jerry Lewis." That fictional event has yet to happen. 60 years ago, there were a lot of Jerry Lewis films, but France isn't "The World." Little Dougie used to love Jerry intensely himself. But then he turned 6 and outgrew him. Jerry has, without question, made a number of industry-revolutionizing technical innovations. And Jerry is actually a damn good dramatic actor. His work in The King of Comedy and Wiseguy was first-rate. And nobody does smarmy with less irony. Jerry's speech began with: "Thank you so very much. For most of my life I thought that doing good for someone didn't mean you would receive commendation for that act of kindness." Now that is a professional comedian. He opened with a joke. But his best line came later: "The humility I feel is staggering." Jerry is deeply impressed by his amazing humility. He is so humble, he's humbled by his humility. He's the humblest man since Uriah Heep. But perhaps Best Editing should have gone to Jerry, for he kept his speech blessedly brief. Thank you, Jerry. Best Original Score should have gone to Kate Winslet for The Reader , but it went instead to A. R. Rahman for Slumdog Deal or No Deal . Rahman ended his speech with "God is great." I expected Bill Mahar to pop his head in and say, "No he's not." They had a medley of the nominees for Best Song You Didn't Hear As You Left The Theater, which was mostly a fun big Bollywood production number. Notably absent was Peter Gabriel, who had previously withdrawn, stating, "If I can't bore them for the full four minutes, then I won't bore them at all!" Best (Foreign Language) Song - went to A. R. Rahman's Jai Ho , which I think is Indian for "J-Lo." In his speech this time, Rahman left us with this tidbit: "All my life I've had a choice of hate or love." Well that certainly distinguishes him from the rest of humanity. Why wasn't Waltz With Bashir nominated for Best Animated feature? It's a feature. It's animated. It got reviews that most films would kill for, and it was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. And if Waltz With Bashir can be considered alongside non-animated films as an equal, why must English language animated films be confined to an animation ghetto? Best Foreign Language Film went to the Japanese film Departures , set in a mortuary, it's about what happens to a person after Godzilla steps on them. Queen Latifah sang the great song I'll Be Seeing You over the dead people montage. While everyone was relieved to see that I wasn't in the montage, the problem is that now, at the end of awards season, we've seen all these same dead people in montage after montage over the last two months, and frankly, it's getting old. No fresh faces. The only point of interest was hearing who the audience broke into applause for, and who it didn't. Folks getting applause: Cyd Charisse, Bernie Mac, Ollie Johnstone (A lovely man), Michael Crichton, Nina Foch, Pat Hingle, Harold Pinter, Abby Mann, Roy Scheider, Richard Widmark, Isaac Hayes, Ricardo Montalban, Paul Scofield, Stan Winstone, Ned Tannen, James Whitmore (A fresh face), Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, and Paul Newman. (Who got cheers! I hope that meant they loved him.) Folks getting silence: Bud Stone, Van Johnson, Charles Joffe, Kon Ichikawa, Charles H. Schneer (Such a darling man, eulogized at length over on my flog, in The Man Who Doomed San Francisco ), David Watkin, Robert Mulligan, Evelyn Keyes, Maila, Nurmi, Manny Farber (A film critic, you can't expect | |
| Robert Creamer: How Bush's Policies in the Muslim World Played into Terrorists' Hands - Can Obama Reverse Course? | Top |
| I just returned from Jordan where I attended a seminar on Islam and American Foreign Policy. What struck me most is that the more you talk to leaders from the Muslim world - the more you study the polling of Muslim attitudes - the clearer it is that George Bush didn't just get the "War on Terror" a little wrong. The basic thrust of the "War on Terror" was 100% wrong - 180 degrees off the mark. In fact, you could argue, that if Osama Bin Laden himself had designed the strategy, it is hard to imagine how - in its essentials - it could have done more to play into the hands of the small fraction of Muslim extremists who resort to terror. Bush's policy seemed to presume that if the military could just track down and kill enough Islamic radicals and terrorists, terrorism could be wiped out. But even the Bush administration understood that the small, hard core of Muslim terrorists depends upon support from a much broader group of radicalized Muslims - for new recruits, for money, for protection. In 2007 John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed published Who Speaks for Islam? , a book based on Gallup's World Poll - the largest study of Muslim attitudes ever undertaken. Between 2001 and 2007 Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hour-long random interviews with the residents of 35 nations with majority or substantial Muslim populations. Part of this study was devoted to examining the factors that created Muslim radicals. It found that only 7% of Muslims were "politically radicalized" and thought that the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified. The Bush Administration argued on more than one occasion that what drove terrorists and Muslim radicals was their "hatred for our way of life, our freedom, democracy, and success." But it turns out that this view is completely wrong. • When asked what they admired about the West, politically radicalized and moderate Muslims both mention: 1) technology, 2) the West's value system, hard work, self-responsibility, rule of law, cooperation; 3) fair political systems, democracy, respect for human rights, freedom of speech, gender equality. • The politically radicalized are actually more prone than moderate Muslims to agree that "moving toward greater governmental democracy" will foster progress in the Arab/Muslim world (50%, vs 35% for moderates). • Anti-Americanism is not a result of deep-seated hatred of the West in general, or emblematic of deep East-West religious or cultural differences. Unfavorable opinions of the United States and Britain do not preclude positive views of France or Germany. For example, while only 25% had unfavorable opinions of France and 26% of Germany, 68% had unfavorable opinions of Britain and 84% for the United States. • It turns out that politically radicalized Muslims are not mainly poor or uninformed. 67% had secondary or higher education (compared to 52% of moderates) and 65% said they had higher than average incomes (compared with 55% of moderates). The study concludes that: "A primary driver of radicalism, often seen as inseparable from the threat to Muslim religious and cultural identity, is the threat of political domination and occupation." The findings of this survey are confirmed by a study by Robert Pape, the author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. He investigated every suicide attack in the world form 1980 to 2004. He found that more than 95% of all incidents had as its central objective to compel the withdrawal of military forces from the territory that terrorists view as their homeland . So what did Bush do? He invaded Iraq and confirmed Osama Bin Ladin's narrative. He initiated policies of torture and detention without trial that called into question America's true commitment to democracy and reinforced the widely held view that "democracy" was only a cover for America's desire to occupy Muslim lands and steal their oil. In the words of Esposito and Mogahed, "While terrorists must be fought aggressively, military occupation of Muslim lands increases Anti-American sentiment, diminishes American moral authority with allies and silences the voices of moderates who want better relations." What the Bush policy on terrorism ignored was that more than anything else people want a sense of meaning and identity - and their corollary: respect . The polling shows that Muslims feel that their culture and the religious traditions, that in many ways define their sense of personal identity, have been disrespected by Americans and former American leadership. Of course many Neo-Cons compounded that sense of disrespect by arguing that the "War on Terror" involved a clash of cultures and that terrorism was just a symptom and that Islam itself was the real problem. Esposito and Mogahed found that these arguments - which have no basis at all in reality - simply confirm radical beliefs, and fears. They alienate the Muslim majority and reinforce a belief "that the war against global terrorism is really a war against Islam." With resentment of occupation, colonial domination and "disrespect" being the major factors that are shown empirically in the polling to politically radicalize Muslims, you can imagine the impact of the pictures of Muslim's being sexually humiliated by American guards at Abu Ghraib. So what is the way forward for Barack Hussein Obama as he attempts to defuse Muslim anti-Americanism and prevent growth in the population of politically radicalized Muslims that are the true fuel for terrorism? It's not simple, but several steps seem clear: • Respect . The United States must communicate simple respect for Muslim culture. It must do away with the neo-colonial, Neo-Con sense that this must be "An American Century" - that we have the moral right to dominate others - that Muslim culture is "inferior." It was a great start that President Obama's first interview was given to the Al Arabiya television. Empathy - being able to put yourself in another's place - is the first requisite for showing respect. The fact that Obama spent time as child in a Muslim country; his name; the fact that life has equipped him with experiences that allow him to understand other cultures; are all huge personal assets that will have a big impact on our success. • Withdraw from Iraq . The Obama Administration must follow through on its commitment to end the US occupation of Iraq. Iraq is the principal symbol in the Muslim world that the U.S. is using "democracy" as a pretense to occupy Muslim land. • Actively address the two major iconic conflicts that symbolize disrespect and domination of the Muslim world: the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and the conflict in Kashmir. As long as these conflicts continue they will be the frames through which much of the Muslim world views relations with the West. The appointment of George Mitchell and a sharp reversal of the Bush Administration's neglect of the Middle East conflict will help enormously. • Heavy focus on economic recovery and development . General Blair, the new National Director of Intelligence reported to Congress that the worldwide economic collapse is the country's most pressing security risk; that it may cause instability and violence around the world. The Administration's success in cushioning the deep Bush recession and returning worldwide economic expansion is critical to our security in general, and our relations with the Muslim world in particular. Hopelessness and economic dislocation that leads to political instability could be especially disastrous in countries like nuclear-armed Pakistan and India. • Stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan and the northwest tribal territories of Pakistan . This is the most difficult and complex aspect of the foreign policy disaster that George Bush left on Obama's doorstep. It appears that American (and NATO) military power will continue to be necessary for some time to root out the leaders of Al Qaeda, improve the security situation in Afghanistan, and help support the new, democratically-elected government of Pakistan from extremist elements. But this must be accomplished while doing as little as possible to inflame precisely the fears of foreign domination and occupation that create more politically radicalized Muslims. That is a tall order. It will require enormous deftness. And it will require the development and execution of a campaign plan that sets clear, achievable security and economic development goals. Most importantly, it will require the close cooperation and involvement of our NATO allies, the Pakistani and Afghan leaderships - and Afghanistan's neighbor, Iran. When confronted by the tragedy of 9/11, Bush and his Neo-Con advisers responded with policies they had wished to pursue for years. Their theories turned out to be dead wrong. In fact, they poured gasoline on the fire. Now Obama must put out the flames and rebuild America's relationship with the Muslim world. . Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on Amazon.com. More on Israel | |
| Craig Crawford: Oscar Leads the Way | Top |
| With a heartwarming display of diversity, international acceptance and a powerful hint of social change, Oscar led the way on Sunday night. The award winners truly echoed what the voters were trying to say last November -- that America and Americans are different now. We get it. We really get it. And we want the world to get what we're about, what we've always been about it, even when we forgot. We are, simply and forcefully, the future. Not just for ourselves. But for all the world. This was a night for celebrating and remembering what America has always been and ought to be -- the next best step toward a better world. Thanks, Oscar. We needed that. Craig blogs every day at craigcrawford.com on CQ Politics. Follow Craig on Twitter and Facebook More on The Oscars | |
| Raymond J. Learsy: Trust: The Reason Bank Nationalization is Essential | Top |
| It has come to this. Our economy is in grave danger. Trust in many of our banks and lending institutions has evaporated. Without trust, without confidence that your counter party financing institutions can deliver or be trusted to execute the obligations they undertake, commerce as we know it will come to a standstill. If I may, let me give you an example from personal experience. Many years ago while still active in the trading of commodities and physical raw materials I sold a cargo of sulfur to Chile. Now sulfur is the building block for sulfuric acid, which in turn is essential to the production of chemical fertilizers as well as being a key ingredient in the production of explosives for mining operations (think Chilean copper and Chile's bountiful agricultural sector). The transaction was negotiated at a time when the Chilean economy was under enormous pressure. This was during the turbulent Allende presidency, a period during which its commercial relations with the West were sorely strained. In international commerce, transaction payments for the delivery of supplies are normally executed through letters of credit. The Chilean buyers were happy to oblige and offered to establish a letter of credit issued by Chile's largest bank, the O'Higgens Bank. At that time relations with the U.S. were such that the O'Higgens Bank was unable to find an American bank as counterparty to confirm its obligation to pay against our presentation of the title documents for the multimillion dollar cargo. It was made clear to the Chilean buyers that without a confirmation from a major banking institution outside Chile, we would not release the cargo. You see, we had no trust that the O'Higgens Bank of that time had either the means or capability to pay down the Chilean buyers' obligation as and when title documents for the cargo were delivered to them. There was no trust, and without trust in the banking institution as payee, the contract would not be executed. So what happened? The O'Higgens bank was able to to induce the Novrodny Bank of Moscow (I'm not making this up) to confirm the credit. Again, with the political hazards of that cold war moment, we declined the Novrodny Bank confirmation. They obviously needed the cargo badly, and the Novrodony bank thereupon arranged to have the credit confirmed by the Bank of Montreal, an institution well known and respected (our Canadian operations had a long standing relationship with them). Trust was established and the shipment went forward. Without the element of trust the deal would have been aborted. And there in a nutshell is what our financial sector is facing today. Trust has evaporated. No mater the billions upon billions of TARP funds that have flowed into these myriad zombie banks, funds used to prop up the banks and put their balance sheets into a better light (in the case of Citigroup and Bank of America alone, sums far exceeding their current market value). What has not been achieved is recapturing the trust of the business community, the governing class, nor the nation's citizenry. There is no transparency. Neither we, nor the government fully understand what the banks are doing with the funds showered upon them by the TARP agency. Most damaging is the almost universal lack of confidence in the competence and integrity of these tone-deaf managements who have clearly gotten us into this mess. With the mention of "nationalization," the howls of outrage coming out of what is left of Wall Street and their government allies are chilling. The projected pain of shareholder equity being wiped out is more than the bank nabobs had ever considered when plying the financial system and the nation with their toxic razzmatazz , taking us all over a cliff, all the while contemplating their shameful year-end bonuses which in retrospect give more the appearance of fraudulent transfers than earned income. For the government to keep on plowing billions into these banking institutions, without achieving transparency, without control over the sad sacks who got us into this mess is lunacy. Confidence would be restored to the banks, almost overnight, their obligations, their lending capabilities, if a broad nationalization of the zombie banks were to be mandated by the government. The system would function again and America could get back to business. More on Bank Of America | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment